My New Favorite Stalinist

I have been told to read the books of the past written by those with an alien mindset to try to think beyond the boundaries of present-day conventional wisdom. I highly recommend reading Storm of Steel for the bizarre final chapters in which a (perhaps) representative nationalist/militarist German officer attempts to fulfill his death-wish in a war he knows is lost at the expense of his subordinates who would give up their lives to protect him. Although I’m what Matthew Cromer would denounce as a “reductionist materialist” and I was never spiritual even back when I was religious, I still like reading the fundamentalist Vox Day on occasion. Here is a classic in which he says he would butcher innocent children if God told him to (apparently its the moral equivalent of a videogame designer deleting some simulated characters). Although I love private property more than pizza, puppies and alliteration, I still evangelize anti-capitalist Kevin Carson. Anarcho-capitalists should do themselves a favor and look him up to see just how little difference there is between them.

Of course, both of those bloggers I just mentioned are (self-described) libertarians, so it must be an awful small box I’m reaching outside of. That brings me to the subject of this post. Via the Hoover Hog I came across a defense of The Color of Crime (which is published by racists) by Robert Lindsay. Such a thing might not be surprising from the scarier corners of the far-right, but Lindsay is a self-described revolutionary leftist and anti-racist. Some might initially suspect he is just a racist in disguise to discredit an ideology he actually opposes (neo-Nazis conspiracy theorists on the internet like to use the term “false flag” for that idea, although for them it is always DA JOOS behind it). Browse a bit more on his site and it will become apparent that he is really a fossil from the past, ill-fitting in the left of today.

Check out his post on Russian neo-Nazis and the fight between Nazis and Commies (his allegiance is to the latter). This is Old Left, red in tooth and claw, not what we have now. It’s “You’re either a Nazi or a Commie, and those not up to New Socialist Man snuff will be purged”, which is why he’s so willing to make the same digs at the lumpenproletariat underclass that white nationalists engage in. He flat out admits that Stalin massacred tons of innocent people, but that’s excusable because so many others really had to die. He seems to hate all the same things about the modern left that Mencius Moldbug does, but traces it to their turning away from Ye Olde Communiste Iron Fiste, and can’t understand why people today consider his correct Marxism to be borderline-Nazism. They say Bryan Caplan “embraces the darkness”, but he’s got nothing on Lindsay.

In case Lindsay reads this post, I apologize that my description likely sounds like a twisted bizarro version of what you actually believe. I don’t actually bear you any animosity. My way of thinking is simply so far off that reading your posts is a little like learning about a black hole by noticing the wobbling it causes in the orbit of a nearby star. I plan on reading more of your writings to gain a better understanding.

It’s almost refreshing to read this willingness to embrace the worst killers among communism and defend it as it was actually implemented. Everything we know is wrong! Joseph Stalin, while responsible for the Holodomor, was the world’s greatest humanitarian! Mencius will be pleased to note that not only does he want to kill the subhuman street thugs of urban america (Stalin wouldn’t have put up with that riffraff!), he supports the elimination of third world self-described “Marxists” (surely Arab/Muslim Nazis in actuality) thugs in Iraq. Also, despite his denouncing of Trotskyites/neoconservatives, his debunking of the Maoist (some movements of which he supports) concept of “social imperialism” as obviously nonsense because resources flowed from Russia to the sattelite states and the standard of living improved under their rule almost sounds like a Chris Hitchens extolling the benefits of U.S global hegemony.

The more I read his attacking the Big Lie that Communism and Nazism are similar, the more it seemed to me they really are. There is some thinking shared among them not seen so much in the mainstream today. Why is this? Why can he cite Steve Sailer, Gates of Vienna, American Renaissance, and Pan Aryan forums as legitimate sources of information while retaining a proper Stalinist world-view? There is a grain of truth to most ideologies that attain a large number of followers. This grain can send people far off in frightening directions. In some ways the world can be a really awful place and if you dwell on it the unthinkable can start to seem sensible in response.

Easy on the ego-stroking, HA. One reason I like you so much is your willingness to tell people to their face they are wasting their time on clever writing in an attempt to sexually signal or emit libertarian vibes when they should be trying to ward off existential threats to humanity. I swear, one more nice remark and you’re off the blogroll for good!

Finally, someone understands me. :) You, of all people, have finally figured me out. I’m not a fascist, I’m not a Rightist or reactionary, I’m not a racist, bigot, anti-Semite or hater, not an imperialist, not really much of a nationalist. I am none of those things, of course. That is clear to anyone like you well grounded in history.

In my defense, I will say that at the moment I really do not prefer a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship in most places, but I will point out the benefits of such to those who doubt there are any. Some places in the 3rd world just need something like that, because it’s a choice between an existing rightwing dictatorship masquerading as democracy and a leftwing dictatorship, I take the leftwing dictatorship. In places like India and Nepal and Peru, though democratic, the system is so horrible and kills so many people that I figure a leftwing dictatorship that kills a lot fewer people every year is better. That means India where capitalism kills 4 million every year.

For the rest of the world, I feel that democracy is the way to go. Chavez is an example. Sri Lanka and many social democracies have excellent health and longevity figures, which in the end, is pretty much all that matters.

I pretty much support any kind of socialism, and I think the future will be some kind of socialism everywhere.

I don’t support Communism in any 1st world country because none of them are in a “revolutionary situation” right now. Of course Stalinists oppose the “adventurism” of the Maoists and the permanent revolutions of the Trotskyite crazies. For the 1st world, social democracy, as much as possible, is an excellent goal.

BTW, I run a business. It doesn’t really make much money, but I have a county license. A lot of us do. Recall Engels was a businessman.

BTW, I have been thrown out of the local CPUSA cell for “not being a revolutionary” and “supporting capitalism”, whatever that means. I think it was because I supported social democracy.

I’m getting tired of blogging, reductionistic materialism is provably untrue but like other religions its adherents aren’t interested in reading the contrary evidence. Besides my other interests are just more satisfying. . .

I would hope that I do not denounce materialists in general. Eliezer is a special case due to a case of ego elephantiasis. But I’ve lost my interest in arguing with materialists — most people need/want a belief system and I have no desire to debate with Christians or Moslems about their faith-based beliefs, so why should I argue with materialists about their faith-based beliefs?

Matt C, if there are some people who have a disagreement and when initial discussion hasn’t resolved it one says “You’re impossible” while others are willing to continue the conversation, my heuristic would say that person is not being a reasonable disputant. Try thinking of another strategy for leading us misguided RMs to the truth.

Also, there are plenty of things to blog about other than reductionist materialism vs psi phenomena.

It’s nice to see Mr. Lindsay in the comments section. I don’t know why your and Matt C’s comments got flagged as spam. This Aksiment spam filter has had a 100% failure rate so far, but maybe when I start getting traffic that will change.

I don’t intend to debate the merits of various political systems right now. I think I will have a post later on what standard I use (as a proxy) to judge their effects. Since I don’t believe in an objective “good” I realize there is no real test for that, but I think my heuristic will appeal to a lot of people.

TGGP, I’m sure I’ll soon be hectoring you to write more on how to maxmimize our mutual persistence odds. But kind of like how crack dealers operate, first get the customer hooked by giving away free samples (blog praise), then once he’s a total addict you start charging him the real money (topic demands).

There is little point in having an ongoing debate with creationists who refuse to inform themselves about all the evidence of evolutionary change over history.

Similarly, there is little point in me debating materialists who refuse to read evidence that their belief system is an incorrect dogma. I thought they would be interested in the evidence, but for the largest part they are not. Why should they be, when they dominate academia and reign triumphalist in the court of intellectualist opinion? Hubris always blinds. . .

Of course there are lots of other things that I might blog about. But honestly I’m finding other things of more interest to me right now than blogging. . .

I don’t think opposition to psi is a good analogue to creationism given the present circumstances. A person doesn’t have time to investigate every claim for themselves and instead may defer to the experts unless they have significant reason to do otherwise. Right now psi phenomena is not mainstream among scientists. There are a whole host of things that are not but have a few advocates, and these people are usually called “cranks”. What you need to do is explain why in this instance the idea is not crankery and Rupert Sheldrake is not a crank so that his book is worth reading so that others will read Irreducible Mind before Atlas of Creation (which I’ve heard has stunning production values). I also think you are misstating Eliezer Yudkowsky’s position. He never said he ruled out psi phenomena, he just laid out requirements for him to take it seriously (which appear to be par-for-the-course when it comes to his standards for science) that don’t appear to have been met.

It’s an academic imprint with multiple authors, none of whom are Rupert Sheldrake.

In any event, I’m simply tired of trying to explain to people why they ought to read Irreducible Mind (or Sheldrake’s books such as The Presence of the Past). If people wish to believe something that is provably untrue, whether it is fundamentalist religion or fundamentalist materialism, it’s no skin off my nose.

Also, psi phenomena are accepted in my a majority of people and by a strong minority of professional scientists. Mostly because of personal experiences with them. There is an very large body of scientific research and carefully documented accounts of psi phenomena. That’s something quite different than advocating for ideas like Scientology or a six-thousand year old earth.

Anyway I’m already bored and tired of talking about it here! I’ve investigated for myself and determined that these phenomena are do occur(but of course many claimed psychics are deluded or lying), realized the implications of psi, and now I am getting on with other aspects of life. I’m sure I’ll update AMNAP from time to time, but my main attention is definitely elsewhere.

Sorry, my blog is hosted at WordPress.com and not software from WordPress.org so I can’t upload plugins to add features like comment previews. I do agree with you that would be a great thing to have though.

Guess I was confused about Irreducible Mind. I’ll actually consider checking that out.

provably untrue
Speaking of that, is there any evidence that would falsify your belief in psi phenomena?

Also, psi phenomena are accepted in my a majority of people
A lot of people also believe in astrology, creationism, homeopathic medicine and plenty of other nonsense.

and by a strong minority of professional scientists.
What is meant by a “strong minority”?

Mostly because of personal experiences with them.
Sounds like anecdotes to me, which I disregard.

I’ve investigated for myself
Are you a scientist? What kind of investigations did you do?

MatthewC, it approaches a collective performance of self-parody for me to ask you this, but have you considered devoting much of your psi-evangelizing efforts towards evangelizing solving human aging and minimizing existential risk? It seems we’re on an “unforgiving deadline” and I posit we’ll likely have hundreds of millions of years to be convinced about psi if these preliminary concerns are taken care of first.

This is a huge claim, not to be discarded. What conclusions to draw from it, I do not know.
So you do not discard it, but don’t do anything with it either? Are you keeping it in trust for someone else?

A great many people also think they’ve experienced the touch of God. The conclusion I draw is that the mind is prone to tricking you and that outside verification of such things should be sought.

What information have you just given me Douglas? How should I adjust my expectations on it? We would all like to be infinitely specific and accurate about everything, but in the face of our ignorance we simply don’t have that option. If you don’t know what kind of conclusions should be drawn, how can you say we should be more specific? Specific in what way?

There is, of course, no controlled, double-blind evidence that the Nazi Holocaust occurred. Nonetheless, we know it did. With parapsychology, unlike the Holocaust, we have plenty of very well controlled, double-blind studies showing effect that are completely beyond chance, as well as a host of well researched historical data (btw, the author Deborah Blum got a Pulitzer prize for her science writing). I agree with tggp that “the mind is prone to tricking you” and the biggest trick it plays is to make you discount evidence that contradicts your prior beliefs. . .

In any event, we can certainly discount the opinions of anyone who has not actually read the relevant material. . . I look forward to hearing back from tggp with some critiques after he finishes Irreducible Mind. . . Anyway I’ll stop beating this dead horse here on tggp’s blog now. Lots of other interesting subjects here to read about and discuss, like Mencius Moldbug’s excellent and entertaining blog. . .

[…] book he has admitted that the aristocracy was oppressive to the lower class (it is admirable that like Robert Lindsay he acknowledges the historical defects of his favored system) and in discussing the capitalists […]

[…] because we can share our disgust for the “Establishment” for our own pet reasons and I find them more interesting. Among those places recently was the Inverted World where I was sympatico with regard to Darwinism […]

[…] up how Jewish fear of anti-semitism impedes our discourse on other issues. I’ve mentioned before that even some of the most mistaken ideologies have a grain of truth to them that permits them to […]